Hello you lovely people.

Sorry i been away for a while.

Been reading this ongoing topic chit-chat, chitty chitty chit chat (to quote kungfu panda 4)

Just picked up on Mark Ransome comments.
Just to give you a heads up because i dont think you are aware of upcoming laws and regs regarding Online social media sites in the UK / online clubs.

Between 2021 and 2024 the UK gove are proposing new laws (at moment the Bill is in its second reading before going back to the House of Lords) and regulatory bodies (ofcom and the ICO) to oversee regulation compliance.

Basically as a Site Owner, You personally will be legally liable for the overseeing of legal requirements and safety of:
1, content (within reason and your tech ability to do so),
2, Member protection for online abuse.
3, Child Protection (if children are allowed on your site. with or without parental permission)
4, The collection and safe storage of: Members Name, address, contact details.
5, Anti-social behaviour (online)
6, Identification. New regs may mean that your UK site may have to impose an ID registration sign-up process.
7, Maybe imposed a Fee paying registration / subscription.

6 and 7 are the most annoying because it puts so many people off joining. You know what a bunch of conspiracy theorists and ID card haters the UK people are, they dont trust anyone. Yet they will freely give up their personal details to FB, Twit, WA and the others.

This is just the start but all maybe and possibles at moment so dont get worried.



Ive been dealing with this for over a year and its not as worrying, scary as it looks or sounds.
Thing is, the UK are not alone in this. The US (i think) Canada, EU, NZ, Aus are also thinking about the same laws and reg. This is a method to combat online crime, abuse, fraud.



I am classed as a Social network Club. not a free join up or run like the others.

The reason i am giving you a heads up is because you wont find anything about this just floating around Gov. or online. i hade to find out by chance / accident back in 2016 and recently off the ICO and ofcom as i also host videos from members.



Hope i havent scared you off from running your own site. keep at it and enjoy the ride.



mikel.
UK

Hi,

No thanks for that, you haven't scared me off although, yes a bit apprehensive about items 6 and 7 above! But I will keep my eyes open on this thread, it's currently the best source of info about all this I have found so far.

Kind regards,

Mark - UK

Hei Mark.

as for items 6 and 7 in my post.
I am having members type their personal details such as name, address, contact details in to the signup form. This putting people off from signing up.

I am now planning of just making it a subscription fee payable site.
Reason: If new members pay a sign up fee (through paypal) i get their address anyway on invoice. This then will mean i dont need to collect personal details on signup. This is better

This wont work for my Business members as i need to collect company Reg and Tax numbers and check with Companies house and HMRC.

But for normal regular members it would be acceptable. But i still would have to be registered with the ICO (information commissioners office)

Also as for ID verification:
I am using Passport , drivers licence, ID cards such as uks citizen card and when the new Gov. ID voting card is released in February time i will be using that card also to verify members.



So just some thing to think about. Although not legally required yet but things are moving in this direction so be prepared.
If youre not registered with the ICO yet, get registered, if you hold any information on members. Should cost you £40.00 per year
Information such as, name, address, contact details, images.


As far as ofcom, are you hosting videos uploaded to your site by members for members, video adverts, youtube or others ? best get in touch with ofcom. Reason is, you have to demonstrate that you can manage the videos and protect children or vulnerable adults from online harm and abuse. I now have a dedicated person for monitoring the video section.
Best way to get info for your personal sites needs is just to email ofcom. I tried going through their website and i got lost. But its ok now.
Ofcom are just as confused as we are as the Gov just dropped this in their laps also, so info is in bits due to the Gov not having clear rules and requirements thought out.
Ofcom are fantastic, not scary people at all, even the one that is assigned to monitor my site. Lovely fella.

But just bare with it.



Mikel.

Great to see you Mikel and you are always a wealth of information on the subject of website security and best practices.

If I was in the UK and had to live by those rules, I could.... as a site owner should be expected to follow their TOS and their countries laws, the however part is as a website hobbyist, whereas I fund all of my websites on my own and I don't charge subscriptions, I could not take the personal risk to keep my websites open if a member got a supreme wedgie about content that was written on my website and decided to sue. In Section 230 of the CDA, content belongs to the person that wrote it. If I'm now considered a publisher and responsible for all of the comments/content, then I'd think I'd have to find another hobby as there's too much risk from a wild card member.

The argument I've made to my senator, is if our legislators pursue changing their laws then they end up with the very dynamics they are arguing against, and that would be only the dominate websites with billions of funds would survive and so would any narrative from any nefarious groups, businesses or the website themselves, all control would now prevail...there would no longer be the freedom of speech and obviously, I get the difference as you mentioned at GatorJax which was a good read:

From GatorJax:
According to Amnesty International:
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech-freedom-expression-human-right
What is Freedom of Speech.



Freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you like about whatever you like, whenever you like, right? Wrong.



'Freedom of speech is the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means.'



Freedom of speech and the right to freedom of expression applies to
ideas of all kinds including those that may be deeply offensive. But it
comes with responsibilities and we believe it can be legitimately
restricted.



When freedom of speech can be restricted



You might not expect us to say this, but in certain circumstances free speech and freedom of expression can be restricted.

Hei.

First things first.
As a Hobby you would be ok with not charging a fee or having certain personal information on sign up. sometimes i have $free sign-up promotions.

The big problem is in todays society, on social sites that do not collect personal identifying info of members. We all know the sites..

So lets look at your C230.
If the laws or rules say that: the site owner / admin or moderator is responsible for all content on site and also Held accountable, then this is a good thing.

Here is the reason why.
There are so many hobbyists with sites who let members express their views, however good or derogatory it is. This in tern creates hatred, abuse, incitement to commit crime or harm not just on individuals but on society in many ways.

So by making site owners responsible for the content and so liable for allowing such content to exist for a longer period of time than is good for society, or club members.

Remember, there are people and groups out there that sole purpose is to spread hate on as many sites as possible and do this Anonymously.



So C230 is not just to punish, but to inspire site owners to improve, protect members and the wider society. We do this by not seeing the C230 as a barrier but as a useful tool to give you more power to grow and be a better site.

C230 "police force" are not going to burst down your door just because someone said "all none white should be made to dress like faries riding a flamingo".
Its more about the Length of time that comment remains on the site and visible to none whites and find it harmful.

So the C230 would give you time to take down that comment in reasonable time to either delete it or store it should law enforcement need to use it in prosecution of the person or group who posted the comment.



The more politicians create rules to better protect society, the more people see politicians as fun stopping, liberty crushing monsters. But the flip side to this is, if politicians did nothing then i bet the people would say "why didnt the politicians do anything to protect us" so in a way, politicians cant win. That saying "damned if they do, damned if they dont" comes to mind.



Now about Freedom of speech / expression
Every one can scream "freedom of speech" but how many of them screaming it actually know the meaning of it ? i could count on 1 hand how people i know who understand the principle of Freedom of speech.

In the UK as in the US we have this freedom. Its not just about saying what you like, where, when or how you like without fear of prosecution or retribution.

Sure we can say what we like BUT with the understanding that: What we say should be the truth, based on provable fact or reasonable belief it is true.
What we say is not meant to be liable, defamatory or degrading. But to make a public awareness of a wrongdoing by a person or group or company against an individual or group of people.

there are always of saying what you want to say in a constructive and knowledgeable and informative way without resorting to abuse by words or shouting or physical action.
We just need to settle our minds and calmly write down what it is that we want to say, gather our facts then use the freedom of speech to a much better effect.

For many years, people have used social media as a platform to abuse the freedom of speech rules to openly abuse others and spread hatred and mis-information. They do this because most sites do not collect personal identifying details off members.
If all sites had to "by law" collect such information then the abuse would go down and people would knowhere to spread abuse and hatred.



So in a way, freedom of speech and C230 go hand in hand and can work together.

As site owners, hobbyist or business sites, we have a choice, we can embrace both c230 and freedom of speech and work with it or we can allow hatred to ruin our sites and our lives until one day the whole internet plug will be pulled and no-one has internet.

Families and children will always want a safe site, even if it has rules and policies. Honest people will always join because of your values and site ethics.



Mikel

Mikel, so much to think about. I wanted to drop in for a moment to thank you for your thoughts. I will respond as soon as I can.

I look forward Web Diva for your response, and you are right, so much to take in! Mark

Hei Mark.



Ive pulled a file from my archive regarding oFcom.

This file relates to : Who / needs to register with ofcom if your site hosts videos.
There are several categories such as video streaming, personal, video hosting, so this file will give some guidance.

It is worth a read so you know where your possible legal requirement is and if you (your site) needs to be registered.

Its a bit long but take your time, understand it and then just email ofcom for clarification.
If you send me (Via message) an email address i can send it to you.

Mikel.

I've stickied this thread because of the excellent conversation on this tough topic and stellar professionalism too!



@MikelCoreclark: In response to your post on January 30 (Post numbers would be really nice in this instance wouldn't it; and the only reason I"m not quoting is because I don't want to take away from the above posts as they are super important).....you have a lot of positivity and trust in the internet laws of the UK and the proposed laws pending approval from the House of Lords. I can appreciate that and you have made good arguments for the foundational reasons for the UK to pursue the implementation of the laws. If the UK's intent was to truly discourage hate, bullying, incitement to commit crimes, understood.




@Mikel Coreclacks qoute:
So lets look at your C230.

If the laws or rules say that: the site owner / admin or moderator is responsible for all content on site and also Held accountable, then thisis a good thing.


Here is the reason why.

There are so many hobbyists with sites who let members express their views, however good or derogatory it is. This intern creates hatred, abuse, incitement to commit crime or harm not just on individuals but onsociety in many ways.




The US doesn't exactly have this intent if they modify Section 230.



@Mikel Coreclack quote So by making site owners responsible for the content and so liable for allowing such content to exist for a longer period of time than is good for society, or club members.



The reason why I'm in the suspicious American webmaster box is because the intent of the Republicans is not a pure intent to prevent the above website abuses, their intent is to be able to exercise more control of the internet because they feel disenfranchised by the social media claiming those websites prevented the "conservatives" from free speech by moderating and shadow banning their posts over the past several years under the Trump admin. I can't believe I just wrote that! What they fail to understand is that websites are not democratic institutions. Websites are governed by their TOS/Boiler Plate rules and in the end some understood rules set by the government (eg. COPPA). A website doesn't run like a democracy because it then would be governed by the people and/or ruled by the majority. This is why FB et al. gets to moderate the way they do because of their TOS. Do I agree with FB, that would be another thread argument. My motivation to create websites was to offer organic conversation that was not manipulated by AI, bots, and biased moderation.

The Republicans always say that the democrats own social media, media in general and because of that these large websites drive the democratic agenda. This is in a sense true, however, what I'm asking our legislators to do is to please do not do something really asinine that changes the whole dynamics of the internet for the small websites that are honest and flourish because of their good members and content. Just because you (Republicans) want to exert control now that you have the House, why don't you come to your senses and create something that makes sense.



Here's what a lot of of think of :




“Without Section 230, some websites would be forced to overblock, filtering content that could create any potential legal risk, and might shut down some services altogether,” General Counsel Halimah DeLaine Prado wrote in a blog post summarizing Google’s position. ”That would leave consumers with less choice to engage on the internet and less opportunity to work, play, learn, shop, create, and participate in the exchange of ideas online.”


https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/30/the-supreme-court-could-change-free-speech-on-the-internet.html />



Agreed that there are shady websites that produce hate and criminal activity. Maybe the domain services should have more control with a governing body of sorts to monitor and shut them down if necessary? (Thinking out of the box and not a completed thought yet).




Mikel's quote: So C230 is not just to punish, but to inspire site owners to improve, protect members and the wider society. We do this by not seeing the C230 as a barrier but as a useful tool to give you more power to grow and be a better site.

C230 "police force" are not going to burst down your door just because someone said "all none white should be made to dress like faries riding aflamingo".

Its more about the Length of time that comment remains on the site and visible to none whites and find it harmful.


So the C230 would give you time to take down that comment in reasonable time to either delete it or store it should law enforcement need to use it in prosecution of the person or group who posted the comment.




What is reasonable amount of time? If a hobby website doesn't have a full time 24 hour staff, then "said ugly message" might not be removed as quickly as possible? I do like that SE does have a reporting system whereas a member can "report" a comment or post and alert the website staff to take a look and moderate.




Mikel's quote: Sure we can say what we like BUT with the understanding that: What we say should be the truth, based on provable fact or reasonable belief it is true.

What we say is not meant to be liable, defamatory or degrading. But to make a public awareness of a wrongdoing by a person or group or company against an individual or group of people.



I don't know about the UK, but the US has had a serious amount of censorship of certain topics particularly on Covid-16, and J6. I would like to talk about them but if I was, the trail of comments would go in the direction of "is this really true" and there lies my dilemma? Who's truth? For every comment you could make about a lot of polarizing topics in the US, there's always the antithetical response and some of those arguments could very well be valid. Fifteen years ago we could chat in our forums without fear and have substantive conversations on anything. Now, a lot of us feel we can't have these conversations because "they" can determine "misinformation". Obviously, I'm well grounded and can see through the BS and moderate it, and that's what makes us good Admin's to be able to address the folly or conspiratorial posts. Which still brings me back to the subjective nature of determining who is in violation of Section 230, line 26, if it's modified, then the concern is how did a website's admin fail in some way to now be in lawsuit territory? This is still subjective, unless congress outlines every entire possibility of a website failure which would lead to a lawsuit?



Please don't get me wrong. I'm good with rules, rules are necessary when it comes to the very existence of human nature and I don't mind following rules, but on Section 230 of the CDA they need to be clear, fair and concise, make sense so smaller niche websites can thrive, where I know I can do my job as an Admin, keep my members safe from bullying etc. while also following my TOS and any outside perimeter laws from my country and other countries.

Being a "Moderator" of forums, topics or other such like sections is a difficult job, In a way the "moderator" has to be both judge and juror. A difficult position to be in.

Not only does the moderator have to be knowledgeable (to some amount and i dont mean a college degree) in many common subjects but also wise enough to know when to draw an end to some discussions.



Example: talking about race or religion can both be highly contentious.
So if person 1 says "i dont like coloured people" and goes on to give a life experience to back up their comment in a way that was not defamatory but open to discussion and welcomes a reply from a coloured person and they had an inciteful exchange of ideas and opinions. Then my self as Moderator would not have any problem. It is a proven fact that when people like this talk and create a friendly rapor then friendships are created and barriers can be taken down. Also other readers of this topic could get benefit and relate and be encouraged to not see whites or coloured as "them and us" but rarther as "my friends and fellow Texans"

However, in my experience there will be at some point a 3rd person who will join the friendly discussion for the sole purpose of sabotaging the conversation for their own racist or trouble making ideology. This will happen.

It is at this point the Moderator has a choice.
1, ban the 3rd person from the site. People like this love to spread hate and sabotage conversations.
2, warn the 3rd person not to do this again (but we know this never works)
3, encourage the person 1 and 2 to draw and end to the conversation and create other conversations. Also Possibly create a "Group" of like minded people that can help others overcome racist views and have social days and meetups.
4, draw an end to the conversation because of other people like the 3rd person.



Since your site is a hobby site and most likely confined to your town or state youre most likely going to attract good honest people and for the most part people will behave and stick to your TOCs.

the Moderator could set a day or week discussion time limit ? (like every story, it needs a Start, Middle and an End). It knowing when to draw an end to the story.



Like my site, i have clear "absolute Zero tolerance" so any rule break such as racism, abuse is an instant "closure of the membership and account".

I dont have a team of moderators, but i am creating a "marshalls" group as you know, who will act as my undercover eyes and ears who report back to admin or security.
This way if and when my security miss the rule break or other members fail to report the issue then im confident my "marshalls" will see it and report it or steer the conversation in a positive direction if they are joined in the discussion.



So in a way its the members them selves that can be your best moderators. they will let you know when something should be removed or ended.



mikel.